Case law

Vienna Metro, L.L.C. v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors

86 Va. Cir. 421 · Fairfax County Circuit Court · Apr 23, 2013

Keswick Club v. County of Albemarle, 273 Va. 128, 136 , 639 S.E.2d 243 (2007) (citing Tuckahoe Woman’s Club v. City of Richmond, 199 Va. 734, 737 , 101 S.E.2d 571 (1958)). … Fray v.

Fidelity Savings Ass'n v. Board of Co. Com'rs

1 Colo. N. P. 60 · Arapahoe County District Court · Apr 30, 1900

On account of this item being added to the taxable property of the association, it filed a petition with the board of county commissioners asking that body to correct the assessment by striking therefrom the item of $385,510.00 … Whatever his theory was he was sustained by the board of county commissioners.

New Morton Village Pool & Recreation Ass'n v. Town Board

21 Misc. 2d 987 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1959

The determination by the Town Board was an administrative one in which it exercised discretion. It is reviewable as to reasonableness by the court. (Matter of Rothstein, 6 N Y 2d 728.) … In its preamble statement the board stated that one of the bases for its decision was ‘1 the information of the members of this Board concerning the instant application, which information was obtained both before, during

Vartani v. Board of Property Assessment

48 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County · May 3, 2000

Fleming v. State Civil Service Commission, 13 Pa. Commw. 421 , 319 A.2d 185 (1974); Siegel v. Civil Service Commission, 9 Pa. Commw. 256, 305 A.2d 736 (1973); see also, State Board of Funeral Directors v. … In PennDOT v.

Middletown Township v. Zoning Hearing Board

26 Pa. D. & C.3d 431 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County · Jul 15, 1981

After reviewing the evidence presented to the board, we have no quarrel whatsoever with its fact findings (board decision pp. 3-7). … In our judgment we are compelled by Township of Washington v. Washington Township Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa.

State v. Robinette

75 Ohio Law. Abs. 181 · Pike County Court of Common Pleas · Jan 15, 1957

Maderia Brown site was not selected by the authorized Board and what possible difference could it have made or what materiality with relation to what the Board did could have been a statement by defendant or anyone else for … anything said or done by parties interested in the Brown site was entirely immaterial with respect to any criminal investigation as to the conduct of the Board.

Shoup v. Board of Assessment Appeals

19 Pa. D. & C.3d 736 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County · Jun 29, 1981

Board of Property Assessment, 205 Pa. Superior Ct. 587 , 211 A. 2d 104 (1965), and Wilson v. Philadelphia Board of Licenses & Inspections Review, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 586 , 329 A. 2d 908 (1974). … Plaintiff then concludes that because Regulation D impacts on his business, the board must bear the burden of justifying the regulation: Pirillo v.

Brown v. Lovitz

Superior Court of Maine · Sep 6, 2001

DOCKET NO, CV-97-284 MARK BROWN and LISA BROWN, Plaintiffs Vv. DECISION AND ORDER JEFFREY LOVITZ, M.D., Defendant This matter is before the court on the defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. … Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82, 87-88 (Me. 1996). Thus, because the plaintiffs have made no claim for NIED, the defendant may not have summary judgment on such a cause of action.

Rickert v. Latimore Township Zoning Hearing Board

64 Pa. D. & C.4th 140 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County · Aug 1, 2003

Valianatos v. Zoning Hearing Board of Richmond Township, 766 A.2d 903 (Pa. … See Johnson v. Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud Township, 144 Pa. Commw. 479 , 601 A.2d 927 (1992).

Lord v. Comstock

20 Jones & S. 548 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 7, 1885

All damages which, from a legal point of view, were not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the making of the contract, are too remote (Sparks v. Bassett, 49 Super. Ct. 270).”

Town of Dryden v. Tompkins County Board of Representatives

144 Misc. 2d 873 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1989

If this requirement is an environmental review procedure then compliance must be literal (Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258, 264 ). … Corp., 110 AD2d 87, 95 ) because it is a substantive, rather than a procedural, requirement (Aldrich v Pattison, supra, at 265-266).

Union Paving Co. v. Board of Contract & Supply

74 Misc. 646 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1911

My attention is called to a number of authorities; and Smith v. Syracuse Improvement Co., 161 N. Y. 484 , is strongly urged. … Co. v. City of New York, 190 N. Y. 291 , in so far as that case applies to the question here. There is no charge of fraud or deceit here, and I find no reason why the contract cannot be made as proposed.

People ex rel. Debono v. Board of Police Commissioners

89 Misc. 248 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1915

In the ease of McNichols v. … Corkran v. Hyatt, supra.

Corinthia Enterprises, Ltd. v. Board of Zoning Appeals

22 Va. Cir. 545 · Loudoun County Circuit Court · Dec 20, 1988

Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bond, 225 Va. 177 (1983). … Natrella v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 231 Va. 451, 458 (1986).

Yurgosky v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

45 Pa. D. & C.2d 275 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · May 1, 1968

See Richman v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 391 Pa. 254 , 137 A. 2d 280 ; Nicholson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 392 Pa. 278 , 140 A. 2d 604 . … not violate the health, safety and morals of the neighborhood is not on the landowner, but, rather, the burden of establishing such detriment is upon those who oppose the issuance of a special exception: Temple University v.

Lanciano v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

45 Pa. D. & C.2d 217 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Apr 25, 1968

On October 30th, Lanciano’s attorney wrote the board, asking the board “to allow us to file an appeal from the refusal of the permit”. … On November 6th, the board replied that “ . . . under Rule III (10) of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the board has determined not to accept an appeal in this property until the property is brought into compliance

Flournoy v. Commonwealth of Board for Contractors

79 Va. Cir. 427 · Henrico County Circuit Court · Oct 29, 2009

In its Final Opinion and Order, the Board decided, “the intent of the parties was that the two contracts were part of the same transaction.” The facts before the Board showed that, in 2007, Mr. … As the reviewing Court I give great deference to the Board’s factual conclusions. Virginia Real Estate Comm’n v. Bias, 226 Va. 264, 269 (1983).

Roddick v. Lower Macungie Zoning Board

39 Pa. D. & C.2d 529 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · Mar 8, 1966

In Shellhamer v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 29 Lehigh 228 ; 52 Mun. L. … Medinger Appeal, 377 Pa. 217 ; Silver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 381 Pa. 41”. Our views in the Shellhamer case have been upheld in Uwchlan Township v. Carter, 11 Chester 304.

Column Realty, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board

40 Pa. D. & C.5th 455 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · Aug 20, 2014

A & D, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 379 A.2d 654, 656 (1977). … Chrin Brothers, Inc. v. Williams Township Zoning Hearing Board, 815 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); Shohola Falls; Hersh v. Zoning Hearing Board, 493 A.2d 807 (1985).

McPherson v. Connellsville Joint School Board

32 Pa. D. & C.2d 706 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County · Nov 18, 1963

See Pennsylvania State Board of Medical Education and Licensure v. Schireson, 360 Pa. 129 , 61 A. 2d 343 (1948); State Board of Medical Education and Licensure v. Harney, 60 Dauph. 204; Erie Resistor Corporation v. … Accordingly, as in Sanitary Water Board v. Penn Weir Construction Co., 69 Dauph. 218 (1956); Sanitary Water Board v. Stinard, 68 Dauph. 26 (1955), and Singer v.